The rich are different from you and me; they get to hit and run, almost killing a cyclist, but get off without serious charges because it is hard to be money manager for Smith Barney if you have a record. District Attorney Mark Hurlbert is not charging Martin Joel Erzinger with a felony, because "Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession," which is managing billions for rich people.

Dr. Steven Milo, the victim, is not impressed.

_________________Goddamn that Rick Santorum has a pretty mouth. -sameness

_________________If you spit on my food I will blow your forking head off, you filthy shitdog. - MumblesDon't you know that vegan meat is the gateway drug to chicken addiction? Because GMO and trans-fats. - kaerlighed

The problem is not necessarily the guy who hit the cyclist, though (although, obviously, UGH)... but it's the D.A. not charging him! How on earth does that happen!? Don't we have laws for this reason? Hit person with car and flee scene = charge person with a crime.

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:10 pmPosts: 777Location: between a rock and a hard place

And where is the concern for the "serious job implications" that the victim has to deal with because of the fund manager's negligence? How is he supposed to see patients and perform surgeries while recovering from major injuries? And what about the lasting effects?

They stiffed your 401k's, and used your kids' college money to buy villas in the Hamptons. Then they made you (the taxpayer) pay billions for their binge, and the politicians said that was fine cause they were on the take too. Now they can run you down and get away with it, cause they are oh too important to have a record.... when are Americans going to take to the streets?????

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told HuffPost on Monday afternoon that news reports about the prosecution have been inaccurate. "We charged him with a felony, first of all," he said.

What's happening is that prosecutors offered Erzinger a plea bargain for restitution and two misdemeanors potentially carrying two years of jail time. What the victim wants, Hurlbert said, is for Erzinger to plead guilty to the felony of leaving the scene of accident, causing serious bodily injury. Under that deal, judgment would be deferred and the felony would be cleared from his record after a few years of good behavior. The misdemeanors, though, would stay on Erzinger's record permanently.

"This is the right plea bargain given the facts of the case, the defendant's prior criminal history and his willingness to take responsibility," Hurlbert said. "We feel this is far more punitive than the felony deferred."

Hurlbert did not offer details on the restitution, except to say it would be "significant."

"As far as employment, in any case where there is significant restitution we certainly take that into account....but it is not the overriding concern. In this case it was not the overriding concern," Hurlbert said. He added that he'd received mixed signals about how a felony or misdemeanor rap would affect Erzinger's ability to do his job.

I also read that a factor in his decision was that a deferred felony will drop off his record in a few years, while the misdemeanor charges will stay with him forever. How does this make any sense? There are relatively few situations in which the criminal record of someone in his position will be relevant, the most obvious being background checks for employment. If a company doesn't care about misdemeanors on his criminal record, then it's inconsequential, and if they do, we have exactly the same problem we do with a felony conviction: they will jeopardize future employment.

I also read that a factor in his decision was that a deferred felony will drop off his record in a few years, while the misdemeanor charges will stay with him forever. How does this make any sense? There are relatively few situations in which the criminal record of someone in his position will be relevant, the most obvious being background checks for employment. If a company doesn't care about misdemeanors on his criminal record, then it's inconsequential, and if they do, we have exactly the same problem we do with a felony conviction: they will jeopardize future employment.

It really depends on the company. Yes a deferred felony will drop off his record, but not until he has completed the probation and if he violates his probation it could go from a deferred adjudication to a conviction, which is there forever. The misdameanors will stay on his record, but you are correct in saying that most companies won't care, especially if this is the only thing on his record. Of course, a felony charge would be worse, because it could prohibit him from having certian licenses related to financial services and also prevent him from having very senior positions at any company. Se in the long run, this is a really a gift from the prosecutor who is trying to appear tough.

Yeah, that whole felony thing ruining your life is basically an incentive to not get a forking felony.

_________________"Maybe you guys should stop shopping at the lard store." = Fee"Part of the joy of watching this show is watching people who have no idea how to use knives. It's like watching hockey." = mollyjade